APHC010975842017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI m THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1651 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13-10-2017 SC.No. 249 of 2015 Bhimavaram, West Godavari District passed in on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- the present criminal appeal. Between: Gannavarapu Peddi Raju, S/o. Saheb @ Bamboo R/o.Rajaka Street, Tholeru Village, Veeravasaram Mandal District, Andhra Pradesh State. Occ:Caste Profession, West Godavari ...Appellant / Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at ...Respondent / Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Jhe Court made the following order: 1 i ' // APHC010975842017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1651/2017 Between: 1.GANNAVARAPU PEDDI RAJU, S/0. SAHEB @ BAMBOO, OCCiCASTE PROFESSION, R/O.RAJAKA STREET, THOLERU VILLAGE, VEERAVASARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13-10-2017 passed in SC.No. 249 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- the present criminal appeal is filed for the following amongst other; lA NO: 1 OF 2017fCRLAMP 3235 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence dated 13-10-2017 passed in SC.No. 249 of 2015 on the 2 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1651_2017^ file of the Ml Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and the petitioner may be granted bail, pending disposal of the main appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused for period of 10 days i.e. from 12.11.2020 to 22.11.2020 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/accused for period of 10 days i.e from 12-11-2020 to 22-11-2020 and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No. 249 of 2015 Date 13-10“’2017 on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Bhimavaram by granting bail to the Petitioner/Accused and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent; 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’bleSmt. Justice V. Sujatha) Accused No.1 in S.C.No.249 of 2015 on the file of Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram is the appellant. He along with A2 and A3 tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges. were 3 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 The first charge was under Section 120-B of IPC against all the accused. The second charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1. The third charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC as against A2 and A3. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 10.09.2012, at about 09.00 a.m., all the accused, having conspired together to eliminate one Bomburi Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) have attacked him with a curved knife, wooden plank and chilli powder near Cement road situated at Rajakula street, Toleru village of Veeravasaram mandal, causing his death, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections120-B, 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (a) acquitted the accused (A1 to A3) for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 alone under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. 4 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution 3. witnesses in brief is as follows: A1 is the son of A2 and husband of A3. The accused as well as (i) the deceased are residents of Rajaka street in Tholeru village of Veeravasaram mandal. The deceased is a relative of the accused. The deceased and one Bomburi Koteswara Rao are brothers. P.W.2 is the wife of Bomburi Koteswara Rao and P.Ws.1 and 3 are their children. The deceased, under the impression that the accused have constructed their house by occupying his site, asked A1 and A2 to conduct survey, but of no avail. On 28.08.2012, as the deceased demolished a part of southern wall of the house belonging to the accused, the latter set the criminal law into motion by filing a case in Crime No.54 of 2012 on the file of Veeravasaram Police station under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. In the said case, the deceased surrendered before the concerned Court and obtained bail. In connection with the said boundary dispute, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and decided to eliminate him. Thereafter, A1 directed A3 to watch the movements of the (ii) deceased and on 10.09.2012, at about 09.00 a.m., while the deceased was returning to his house from the fields, A1, with a long curved knife attacked the deceased by hacking on his right knee. Upon hearing cries of the deceased P.W.1 and P.W.3 went to rescue the deceased. At that juncture, A3 sprinkled 5 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 nd chilli powder on the face of the deceased and the 2 accused beat the deceased on the back of his head using a stout wooden plank. As a result deceased fell on the road.-Thereafter, A1 hacked both the knees and hands of the deceased, using the aforementioned knife. When P.W.2 tried to pull the said knife from A1, she sustained an injury to her left index finger. The deceased, succumbed to injuries, on the spot. (iii) Thereafter, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.1 submitted a report (Ex.P.1) to P.W.10 - Head constable, Veeravasaram Police station who registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2012 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. A copy of FIR is forwarded to all the concerned. Ex.P.13 is the FIR. As the offence is of grave in nature, P.W.10 informed the incident to P.W.12 - Inspector of Police, Palakol circle. As P.W.12 was on leave at that time, P.W.11 - Inspector of Police, Penugonda circle, took up investigation. Upon receiving information, at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.11 rushed to the scene of offence. He examined P.Ws.1, 2 and recorded their statements. After securing the presence of P.W.8 and another, he prepared scene observation report, which is marked as Ex.P.6. He seized M.0.3 - controlled Earth, M.0.4 - blood stained Earth, M.0.5 - cotton towel at the scene of offence. He prepared rough sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.14. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.7. Photographs are marked as Ex.P.4. Subsequently, P.W.11 examined P.Ws.3 to 6 and recorded their statements. \ 6 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 On the same day, at about 12.30 p.m., P.W.11 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.8 and others. Ex.P.7 is the inquest report. Then, P.W.11 sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He further instructed P.W.10 to shift P.W.2 to Government hospital, Bhimavaram, as she sustained injury to her left palm during the incident. (iv) On 10.09.2019, at about 04.30 p.m., P.W.9 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, CHC, Bhimavaram conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.11) stating that the deceased died of shock due to head and multiple injuries. Further, he examined P.W.2 and found incised wound over her left index finger, which is simple in nature. He issued wound certificate (Ex.P.12). (V) On 11.09.2012, P.W.11 secured the presence of P.Ws.7 and 10 and recorded their statements. Subsequently, on 12.09.2012, P.W.12 took up further investigation in this case. On 13.09.2012, A1 to A3 visited Veeravasaram Police station and surrendered themselves. P.W.12 recorded the confessional statements of the accused in the presence of P.W.8 and another, under Ex.P.8. Basing on the confession made by A1 and A2, P.W.12 took them to their house, where they hid the crime weapons and seized M.Os.1 and 2 under Ex.P.10. He seized M.0.6 - blood stained half hands shirt of A1. Thereafter, P.W.12 sent the accused for judicial remand. On 04.10.2012, P.W.12 sent the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada along with 7 KSRJ& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 a letter of advice. Ex.P.15 is the RFSL report. After receipt of RFSL report, postmortem certificate and after verifying the investigation of P.Ws.11 and 12, P.W.13 - Inspector of Police, Palakollu town (successor of P.W.12), filed charge sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, marked 4. exhibits PI to PI5 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of the accused. exhibits D1 to D4 (portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and 7) were marked. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 5. Heard Sri. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel, representing Sri. 6. Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that though FIR was registered against the accused within one hour from the occurrence of the incident, the same was submitted to the concerned Magistrate with a delay of 7 hours 40 minutes, as such, the said FIR is antedated, which raises serious doubts. He further contended that the earliest 7. 8 KSR,J& VSJ Cria 1651 2017 report was suppressed. Learned counsel further contends that P.W.8 - panch witness, in his evidence deposed that on 13.09.2012, at about 10.00 a.m. Police seized M.0.1 - knife and M.0.2 - wooden plank, from the house of the accused. The said version of P.W.8 was also supported by P.W.12, but, however, P.W.2, in her cross examination deposed that Police brought M.0.2 from the house of the accused on 10.09.2012, at about 05.00 p.m. Hence, recovery of the aforesaid material objects is doubtful, as there are chances of planting the said material objects at the relevant place, to implicate the accused falsely. Further, he contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are none other than the son, wife and daughter of younger brother of the deceased respectively; which ought to be disbelieved as they are interested witnesses and their evidence has not been corroborated with the evidence of independent witnesses. To support his argument, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Patna, in Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar\ wherein the Court held that when the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt relying upon uncorroborated evidence of interested parties and lack of independent evidence, the accused shall not be convicted. He also relied on a judgment of High Court of Allahabad in Kripa Shanker Dubey Vs. State of U.P.,^ wherein the need for ^ 2024 Supreme(Pat) 970 ^ 2022 Supreme (ALL) 966 ' / 9 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 evidence of reliable witness and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, was discussed. Strangely, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the prosecution has not chosen to examine any other independent witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that though there 8. are number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused, without taking them into consideration. He argued that convictions cannot be based solely on the evidence of witnesses, without corroboration^. It is also contended by learned counsel that as the deceased was involved in number of criminal cases, there are chances of having number of enemies. As such, the deceased might have been killed by his enemies and as there were boundary disputes between the family of the accused and the deceased, his dead body was brought and planted at the scene of offence, in order to implicate the accused falsely and take vengeance. He contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 have implicated the accused in the present case as a counterblast to the earlier case in Crime No.54 of 2012 on the file of Veeravasaram Police station under Section 447 and 427 of IPC filed by the accused against the deceased. As such, learned counsel for the ^2012 Supreme (Del) 80 10 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 appellant requested this Court to allow the present appeal by setting aside the 1'. conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the 9. appeal and contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is reliable and does not raise any doubt. The mere fact that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses in the present case does not make their evidence unreliable, as their evidence was consistent right from Ex.P.1. However, he further contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the relatives of the deceased and as well as the accused. In such a case, there is no necessity for P.Ws.1 to 3 to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. He further contended that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would not be applicable to the case on hand as the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the medical evidence available on record. He further contended that the contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant were already dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and that the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. As such, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the present appeal. 10. P.W.1 is the son, P.W.3 is the daughter and P.W.2 is the wife of the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is a resident of Tholeru village, who turned hostile. P.W.5 is the elder sister of deceased. P.W.6 is also the sister of the deceased, who turned hostile. P.W.7 is the photographer, P.W.8 is the panch 11 KSRJ& VS,J Crla 1651_2017 witness, P.W.9 is the doctor who issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.11) and wound certificate (Ex.P.12). P.W.10 is the head constable who registered the case. P.Ws.11 to 13 are the investigating officers. On a perusal of the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3, it is evident that the deceased used to quarrel with the accused as they constructed their in the absence of the 11. house by occupying the site of the deceased. While so accused, the deceased demolished the southern side wall, belonging to the accused, due to which, a case was registered against the deceased in Crime No.54 of 2012 on the file of Veeravasaram Police station under Section 447 and 427 of IPC by the accused in Veeravasaram Police station. Pursuant to release of the deceased on bail, on 10.09.2012, at about 09.00 a.m., while P.Ws.1 and 2 were chit-chatting near their house, the deceased was returning his house and at that juncture, the accused attacked the deceased. P.W.1 categorically stated that A1 hacked on the left shoulder of the deceased with ‘Veta Katti’ (M.0.1) and A3 sprinkled chilli powder in his eyes. Then, using M.0.1, 1®' accused hacked the deceased on his knees, elbow joints and hands. A2 beat the deceased on the back of his head with M.O.2. At that juncture, when P.W.2 went to stop A1 from attacking the deceased, she sustained an injury to her left finger. The aforesaid version of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated with the earliest report (Ex.P.1). As such, the to 12 KSRJ& VS,J Cria 1651 2017 argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 is unreliable cannot be accepted. 12. The incident took place on 10.09.2012 at about 09.00 p.m. P.W.1 gave a report to the Police at about 10.00 a.m., on the same day. However, the FIR was received by the concerned Magistrate at 05.40 p.m., on the same day i.e., with a delay of 7 hours 40 minutes, which, as per the appellant is abnormal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of held that the purpose of the “forthwith” communication of a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate is to check the possibility of its manipulation. Therefore, a delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate is linked to the lodging of the FIR. If there is no delay in lodging an FIR, then any delay in communicating the special report to the Magistrate would really be of little consequence, since manipulation of the FIR would then get ruled out. Nevertheless, the prosecution should explain the delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate. However, if no question is put to the investigating officer concerning the delay, the prosecution is under no obligation to give an explanation. There is no universal rule that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. In Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab^, the Apex Court held that in a case where FIR was recorded without delay and the (2011) 6 see 288 ^(1972) 2 see 640 / 13 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1651_2017 investigation commenced basing on that FIR and there is no infirmity brought to the notice of this Court, then, however improper or objectionable the delay in receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned be, in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case on hand, admittedly, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. P.W.1 gave a report to the Police at 10.00 a.m., on the date of incident, which is within one hour from the occurrence of 13. the incident. As such, the question of manipulating the FIR does not arise. Further, P.W.10, who registered the case against the accused was not confronted during the course of cross examination regarding the delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate. In the absence of any question put to P.W.10 who could have given an answer, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in this regard, nor can it be held that the delay in receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, no prejudice was said to have been caused to the appellant by virtue of the said delay. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, in this regard, has no merit. 14. It is apparent from the record that except P.Ws.1 to 3, the remaining prosecution witnesses are either hear-say witnesses or have turned hostile. In such a case, when P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the only witnesses to the said incident 14 KSR,J& VS,J CTla_1651_2017 whose evidence is corroborated with Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.11, it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses and have deposed as such only to implicate the accused with a false motive. In such a case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 need not be corroborated with other independent witnesses. Even otherwise, it is evident from their evidence that P.Ws.1 to 3 are not only related to the deceased, but are also the relatives of the accused. Being relatives to both the accused and deceased, there is no necessity for P.Ws.1 to 3 to implicate the accused in the present case. As such, the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 need not be doubted and need not be corroborated with the independent witness. We are also of the opinion that the principle laid down in the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the appellant would not be helpful to the case on hand, in view of the above discussion. 15. It is the argument of. learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery of M.0.2 is doubtful, as there are inconsistencies in the evidence adduced by P.Ws.2, 8 and 12. P.W.2, in her cross examination categorically stated that the date of incident, at about 05.00 p.m.. Police seized M.0.2 from the house of accused, whereas, P.W.8 - panch witness, in his evidence stated that on 13.09.2012, at 10.00 a.m.. Police seized M.Os.1 and 2 from the house of accused. However, though learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the aforesaid discrepancy, no suggestion was put to either of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses stating that M.Os.1 and 2 were planted at the relevant on 15 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1651_2017 not elicit anything contention would not inspire confidence of this Court. place only to implicate the adverse in this respect during the of learned counsel for the appellant accused. As the defence could course of cross examination, the 16. It was contended that the deceased criminal cases and was having lots of was further alleged that the was involved in several other enemies, who might have killed him. It accused was implicated in the case on hand as a counterblast to the case registered by the accused against the deceased, for demolishing the property of the accused, in Crime No.54 of 2012 on the file of 447 and 427 of IPC. The said Veeravasaram Police station under Section contention cannot be believed i registered a case against the deceased, i against the accused, but not the substance in this in view of the fact that, when the accused it is for the deceased to bore grudge accused. As such, we do not find any / argument as no document or circumstance was placed before us to believe this. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the guilt of the appellant/AI for the homicidal reasonable doubt. After conglomeration of the record and in view of the above facts and ci sentence recorded by learned Additional interference. prosecution is able to prove the death of the deceased, beyond entire evidence available circumstances, the conviction and Sessions Judge needs on no l\JlA,JOt VO,J Crla_1651_2017 ^ 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram in S.C.No.249 of 2015, dated 13.10.2017 under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2022 in terms of the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh^, he is directed to surrender before the trial Court, to serve the remaining part of sentence, failing which learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram shall take necessary steps to secure his presence, a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. As 6 2016(3) Alt {Crl.)505(DB) (A.P) Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The III Additional Sessions Judge Bhimavaram (with records) 2. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram Godavari District. 3. The Station House Officer, Veeravarasam Police Godavari District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison Godavari District. 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. 6. One CC to Sri. Dasari S VV S V Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies West Godavari District at West Station, West Rajamahendravaram, East at T S HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 ORDER CRLA NO. 1651 OF 2017 dismissing the appeal